So according to this guy, people on food stamps should: 1. Lose voting privileges so "they couldn’t vote for greater benefits or easier terms (most of them don’t vote, but now they couldn’t)." 2. Be forced to shop at "Government Stores" so they feel the humiliation of being "wards of the state". Oh and the "Government food products" would be easily recognizable, to further humiliation for people on food stamps. 3. Be subject to monthly tobacco and drug screening, and if found with tobacco or drugs in their system, be dropped from the program.

I really hope this is a joke, but I'm guessing it isn't.

"People pay for “necessary” items with their EBT government debit cards and then use cash for their smokes, beer and munchies. Yet, I have to fork over my hard-earned dollars for every item in my cart (and in essence theirs as well, since I pay taxes while they probably get “refunds” every April). Something is wrong here.

I have a solution: Dharma-style food stamp reform. First, the federal government would create a government “brand” of essential food items such as milk, cheese, meat, cereal, vegetables, bread, peanut butter, beans, juice, soup, baby formula, diapers, etc., and would package the items with simple black-and-white labels and basic descriptions.....Second, the government would lease existing store fronts and set up “government stores.”.....Third, and most importantly, all food stamp recipients would be required to spend their government dollars at these stores.....Fourth, anyone who accepts government aid would have to submit to a monthly tobacco and drug test.

While I believe the federal food stamp program to be unconstitutional, immoral and a state issue, the simple fact is that the program is not going away.....There should be humiliation and pain in government assistance. Every time someone accepts food stamps, they are spitting on the principles of independence, and they, not the taxpayers who fund the program, should be reminded of that fact."

Unfortunately, Scarecrow, I know it's not a joke because a) this is how poverty was viewed in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th Centuries, and b) some of the ultra right-wingers are die-hard social Darwinists. They won't ever get their way, of course, not with 48% of Americans either classified as in poverty or as low-wage earners (from the 2010 Census). People like the article's author are a dying breed so they scream all the harder for these fascist, primitive measures to be taken against the poor.

Poverty was once thought to be caused by a lack of moral virtue; before Roosevelt, the poor - and even the destitute elderly - had to live in workhouses (commonly called poorhouses) that were run like prisons, and anyone who chose to live in one was treated like someone who committed a crime. You were only there because you were somehow immoral. No specifics, no criminal charges, no ... it was simply assumed that if you were poor, you did something wrong, either legally or morally.

These are fine examples of what many Americans witness on a regular basis. The other day, while my family and I were waiting in a check-out line at Wal-Mart, I noticed that the woman checking out in front of us was texting on her $200 cell phone (which probably costs at least $100 a month in service fees and may have been paid for by the government as well) and holding what my wife says was a $100 designer purse, with a stack of junk food, beer and cigarettes on the belt behind a line of subsistence products like milk, cheese, cereal and meat.

The above "observation" purportedly witnessed by the author's article is what is known as an internet meme.

A meme ( /ˈmiːm/; meem)[1]) is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures.

The reason I know it's a meme is because nearly everyone against food stamps has somehow, inexplicably, seen the exact ... same ... thing. The details never change. This lack of differences between individual anecdotes is what should clue anyone into the fact that the author is spreading bullshit. I doubt he actually saw anyone with a $200 cellphone or a $100 designer purse and a cartload of beer and cigarettes. Instead, he read someone else claiming to have seen this EBT abuser and adopted it as his own experience ... and when hundreds of others do the same, a meme forms.

The bottom line is that this person is lying. Plain and simple. He is a liar. The only caveat is that he doesn't realize he's lying. He probably believes he saw the cellphone, the designer purse, the cart of cigarettes and booze because this image is so powerful, so burnt into the brains of people like him, that it becomes a real experience. There have actually been psychological studies of this, and the phenomenon is very real.

An example of this is the old Camel Cigarette sign that used to be a part of Times Square. For awhile, that sign became such a cultural image that people swore up and down that they actually saw the sign while in New York even though the sign had been taken down decades ago.

The same phenomenon with the food stamp user with an expensive cell phone, designer purse, and cartload of junk food, beer, and cigarettes operates under the same principle as the Camel Cigarette sign.

Only this particular meme is being used in a war against the poor - at least by a few. To be honest, I hate people like the author of this article. I HATE them. I don't hate easily, and there are probably people who do a lot worse things that I don't hate. Even people who have personally wronged me, I do not hate. But people like this ... I hate. Pure and simple.

In fact, I'm going to end this post here because the longer I talk about jackasses like this "author," the angrier I'll get, and I don't want to wreck a perfectly lovely day ranting about people I hate. Let this person stew in his own self-righteous indignation while the REST of the country evolves.

I was surprised by the people making the comments beneath the article. I was expecting a bunch of posts exclaiming "hear! hear!," blaming Obama (food stamps were around before he was), etc., but most of the people except for maybe one or two, disagreed with the author.

Since the site seemed right-wingish (maybe somewhere around where Huffington Post is on the left), hopefully people even on that side are sick of those semi-fascist articles whose solutions usually include some kind of back-breaking workfare (why not just pay these people if they're doing a job?) or in this case, giving poor people only the lowest grade bulk foods (NO SNACKS ALLOWED) packaged to shame them; 'cause if we do that to them enough, they'll "get off their butts and get to work." Of course out of the other side of their mouths, the Conservatives will gladly tell you how high the unemployment is.

Why were workhouses feared by the poor and old?The government, terrified of encouraging 'idlers' (lazy people), made sure that people feared the workhouse and would do anything to keep out of it.How did they do that? What were workhouses like?

Women, children and men had different living and working areas in the workhouse, so families were split up. To make things even worse they could be punished if they even tried to speak to one another!

The education the children received did not include the two most important skills of all, reading and writing, which were needed to get a good job.

The poor were made to wear a uniform. This meant that everyone looked the same and everyone outside knew they were poor and lived in the workhouse.

Upon entering the workhouse, the poor were stripped and bathed (under supervision).The food was tasteless and was the same day after day.The young and old as well as men and women were made to work hard, often doing unpleasant jobs.

Children could also find themselves 'hired out' (sold) to work in factories or mines.Dr Thomas Barnardo felt that workhouses were the wrong places for children and so from 1867 onwards, led the way in setting up proper children’s homes.

I’ll not bother with repeating the author’s name, who hereinafter shall be called “the esteemed author”, or just “tea”.

The first clue that tea’s article is not worth reading (I read it anyway) is his claim that the food stamps program is unconstitutional. Why? Because food stamps are “a state issue.” tea seems a product of poor education wise, never having learned that the federal government does indeed posses constitutional authority to fund state programs such as the Food Stamp Program and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), as it was called back in my day. Each of these federally funded programs is administered by the sovereign states in which they operate. Apparently tea is unaware of the two triangles principle and reality, which I’ll explain to anyone who is interested, which has been the reality in which most federally funded programs have existed for decades, including the Interstate Highway System, which tea no doubt accesses and uses on a regular basis, and upon which tea depends for his essential food and diapers (he seems a bit fixated upon baby underwear).

The second clue is tea's reference to abridging voting, a Creator-endowed, Constitutionally-guaranteed unalienable right that is necessary for the existence of a government which derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. tea seems unaware of the Declaration of Independence as well as ignorant of the US Constitution.

The insidiously debilitating aspect of tea’s plan is the covert establishment of a permanent underclass complete with accompanying infrastructure, both seemingly designed for long term existence. Conversely, the underlying premise of food stamps is of transience, temporary assistance designed to aid persons get back on their feet, administered through already existent state agencies and private enterprises. Perhaps tea desires that there always be someone he can look down upon in is daily walk through an otherwise unremarkable life.

By the way, I never examine the purses of women who are strangers to me, and I expect no one who is a stranger to me to examine my wallet.

but most of the people except for maybe one or two, disagreed with the author.

Probably because half the country is either poor or in poverty. That number will likely only get bigger since wages refuse to keep pace with prices and inflation. The quasi-fascists who are so miserable with their comfort that they have to take food out of the mouths of the poor just to feel good about themselves - well - they're the ones who often find their heads on the chopping block when the time comes.

So according to this guy, people on food stamps should: 1. Lose voting privileges so "they couldn’t vote for greater benefits or easier terms (most of them don’t vote, but now they couldn’t)." 2. Be forced to shop at "Government Stores" so they feel the humiliation of being "wards of the state". Oh and the "Government food products" would be easily recognizable, to further humiliation for people on food stamps. 3. Be subject to monthly tobacco and drug screening, and if found with tobacco or drugs in their system, be dropped from the program.

I really hope this is a joke, but I'm guessing it isn't.

"People pay for “necessary” items with their EBT government debit cards and then use cash for their smokes, beer and munchies. Yet, I have to fork over my hard-earned dollars for every item in my cart (and in essence theirs as well, since I pay taxes while they probably get “refunds” every April). Something is wrong here.

I have a solution: Dharma-style food stamp reform. First, the federal government would create a government “brand” of essential food items such as milk, cheese, meat, cereal, vegetables, bread, peanut butter, beans, juice, soup, baby formula, diapers, etc., and would package the items with simple black-and-white labels and basic descriptions.....Second, the government would lease existing store fronts and set up “government stores.”.....Third, and most importantly, all food stamp recipients would be required to spend their government dollars at these stores.....Fourth, anyone who accepts government aid would have to submit to a monthly tobacco and drug test.

While I believe the federal food stamp program to be unconstitutional, immoral and a state issue, the simple fact is that the program is not going away.....There should be humiliation and pain in government assistance. Every time someone accepts food stamps, they are spitting on the principles of independence, and they, not the taxpayers who fund the program, should be reminded of that fact."

What a disgusting and unsavoury person who can write such a thing about poor folk...what is there crime?...they just happen to be poor....not much of a crime is it.....I feel sad to read that some people in the US can even write in such ways...a sad day...

RockOnBrother wrote:I’ll not bother with repeating the author’s name, who hereinafter shall be called “the esteemed author”, or just “tea”.

The first clue that tea’s article is not worth reading (I read it anyway) is his claim that the food stamps program is unconstitutional. Why? Because food stamps are “a state issue.” tea seems a product of poor education wise, never having learned that the federal government does indeed posses constitutional authority to fund state programs such as the Food Stamp Program and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), as it was called back in my day. Each of these federally funded programs is administered by the sovereign states in which they operate. Apparently tea is unaware of the two triangles principle and reality, which I’ll explain to anyone who is interested, which has been the reality in which most federally funded programs have existed for decades, including the Interstate Highway System, which tea no doubt accesses and uses on a regular basis, and upon which tea depends for his essential food and diapers (he seems a bit fixated upon baby underwear).

The second clue is tea's reference to abridging voting, a Creator-endowed, Constitutionally-guaranteed unalienable right that is necessary for the existence of a government which derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. tea seems unaware of the Declaration of Independence as well as ignorant of the US Constitution.

The insidiously debilitating aspect of tea’s plan is the covert establishment of a permanent underclass complete with accompanying infrastructure, both seemingly designed for long term existence. Conversely, the underlying premise of food stamps is of transience, temporary assistance designed to aid persons get back on their feet, administered through already existent state agencies and private enterprises. Perhaps tea desires that there always be someone he can look down upon in is daily walk through an otherwise unremarkable life.

By the way, I never examine the purses of women who are strangers to me, and I expect no one who is a stranger to me to examine my wallet.

Hello ROCK Please tell me this is not true......The insidiously debilitating aspect of tea’s plan is the covert establishment of a permanent underclass complete with accompanying infrastructure, both seemingly designed for long term existence. Conversely, the underlying premise of food stamps is of transience, temporary assistance designed to aid persons get back on their feet, administered through already existent state agencies and private enterprises. Perhaps tea desires that there always be someone he can look down upon in is daily walk through an otherwise unremarkable life.

I wish I could tell you it's not true. When enforcement of federal laws prohibiting illegal employment o undocumented aliens was stepped up, ultra-wealthy folks were found to be among the biggest violators.

Why? In my opinion, because one can pay an illegal, undocumented alien a fraction of what one must pay a person who is working legally. A permanent underclass provides a permanent source of cheap labor.

I wish I could tell you it's not true. When enforcement of federal laws prohibiting illegal employment o undocumented aliens was stepped up, ultra-wealthy folks were found to be among the biggest violators.

Why? In my opinion, because one can pay an illegal, undocumented alien a fraction of what one must pay a person who is working legally. A permanent underclass provides a permanent source of cheap labor.

God that bad Rock...sad to hear this goes on in a country like the US...We have problems here with cheap labour but not as bad as what you have mate

I have a friend right now who is being exploited, and she's not even an illegal immigrant. Or any kind of immigrant, but a local girl born and raised right here in this American city. Her boss is paying her on salary $300 every two weeks for 20 hours per week of work. Except he keeps having her come in for as many as 40 or 50 hours per week. But because she's salaried, she gets a lousy $300 every two weeks even if she puts in 100 hours or more per pay period. According to her records, which I have personally verified, some weeks she is literally making $1.90/hour. The minimum wage is $7.25/hour.

A phone call to the North Carolina Department of Labor verified that her boss is required by law to pay her a minimum of $450 every two weeks for 20 hours of work per week. She would file a claim, but she's afraid of losing what money she does make, so she puts up with it.

And hence a permanent underclass of exploited, impoverished workers is created. It's just a matter of making people desperate enough to work for anything ... anything at all ... to stave off homelessness.

Shirina wrote:I have a friend right now who is being exploited, and she's not even an illegal immigrant. Or any kind of immigrant, but a local girl born and raised right here in this American city. Her boss is paying her on salary $300 every two weeks for 20 hours per week of work. Except he keeps having her come in for as many as 40 or 50 hours per week. But because she's salaried, she gets a lousy $300 every two weeks even if she puts in 100 hours or more per pay period. According to her records, which I have personally verified, some weeks she is literally making $1.90/hour. The minimum wage is $7.25/hour.

A phone call to the North Carolina Department of Labor verified that her boss is required by law to pay her a minimum of $450 every two weeks for 20 hours of work per week. She would file a claim, but she's afraid of losing what money she does make, so she puts up with it.

And hence a permanent underclass of exploited, impoverished workers is created. It's just a matter of making people desperate enough to work for anything ... anything at all ... to stave off homelessness.

Wow! That is a precise description of the Tory ambitions for the British market for workers.

Hey this is Fox , they were hardly going to run a good news story where the lottery winner kept receiving state benefits and keeping the lottery winning's

Fox only ran this story because it feeds into the right-wing Lie Machine that tells America that anyone on food stamps is a lazy fraudster. This nonsense has already been brought up in arguments by conservatives who wish food stamps would just disappear. I'm sure in their delusional state, they will now believe that everyone on food stamps are actually secret millionaires. In fact, it will probably be added to the current meme that they like to use so much:

"Yeah, I saw a lady in the check-out line with an expensive cell phone and a cart full of booze and cigarettes. In one hand, she had her food stamps and in the other, she had a winning lottery ticket! Then I watched her go outside and climb into her brand new Escalade!"

LINCOLN PARK, Mich. (AP) - State officials say a Detroit-area woman who won a $1 million lottery prize but continued to get food stamps has been removed from the food assistance program.

The Michigan Department of Human Services said Wednesday the lottery winner no longer was getting benefits. It followed a report this week from WDIV-TV in which 24-year-old Amanda Clayton of Lincoln Park acknowledged continuing to get $200 in monthly food aid after her September win.

The Lib-Dems are enjoying their Spring Conference this weekend, and one proposal is to protect Pensions from Income Tax.

Some people just don't think. There is currently much discussion about Pensions and particularly Benefits like winter-fuel or child-allowance being paid to the wealthy, and an astonishing number think that means-testing is a Good Thing - instead of the ritual humiliation it produces.

At least income tax claws some of it back automatically from those who aren't necessarily in need.

oftenwrong wrote:The Lib-Dems are enjoying their Spring Conference this weekend, and one proposal is to protect Pensions from Income Tax.

Some people just don't think. There is currently much discussion about Pensions and particularly Benefits like winter-fuel or child-allowance being paid to the wealthy, and an astonishing number think that means-testing is a Good Thing - instead of the ritual humiliation it produces.

At least income tax claws some of it back automatically from those who aren't necessarily in need.

For another £20 quid a week I'd walk naked up the High Street. Provided it's summer, of course.